DOCSLIB.ORG

Carrying Capacity Carrying Capacity Is Typically Defined As the Maximum Population Size That Can Be Supported Indefinitely by a Given Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carrying Capacity Carrying Capacity Is Typically Defined As the Maximum Population Size That Can Be Supported Indefinitely by a Given Environment Carrying capacity Carrying capacity is typically defined as the maximum population size that can be supported indefinitely by a given environment. The simplicity of this definition belies the complexity of the concept and its application. There are at least four closely related uses of the term in basic ecology, and at least half a dozen additional definitions in applied ecology. Basic Ecology Carrying capacity is most often presented in ecology textbooks as the constant K in the logistic population growth equation, derived and named by Pierre Verhulst in 1838, and rediscovered and published independently by Raymond Pearl and Lowell Reed in 1920: where N is the population size or density, r is the intrinsic rate of natural increase (i.e., the maximum per capita growth rate in the absence of competition), t is time, and a is a constant of integration defining the position of the curve relative to the origin. The expression in brackets in the differential form is the density-dependent unused growth potential, which approaches 1 at low values of N, where logistic growth approaches exponential growth, and equals 0 when N=K, where population growth ceases. That is, the unused growth potential lowers the effective value of r (i.e., the per capita birth rate minus the per capita death rate) until the per capita growth rate equals zero (i.e., births=deaths) at K. The result is a sigmoid population growth curve (Figure 1). Despite its use in ecological models, including basic fisheries and wildlife yield models, the logistic equation is highly simplistic and much more of heuristic than practical value; very few populations undergo logistic growth. Nonetheless, ecological models often include K to impose an upper limit on the size of hypothetical populations, thereby enhancing mathematical stability. [Of historical interest is that neither Verhulst nor Pearl and Reed used ‘carrying capacity’ to describe what they called the maximum population, upper limit, or asymptote of the logistic curve. In reality, the term ‘carrying capacity’ first appeared in range management literature of the late 1890s, quite independent of the development of theoretical ecology. Carrying capacity was not explicitly associated with K of the logistic model until Eugene Odum published his classic textbook Fundamentals of Ecology in 1953.] The second use in basic ecology is broader than the logistic model and simply defines carrying capacity as the equilibrial population size or density where the birth rate equals the death rate due to directly density dependent processes. The third and even more general definition is that of a time. In this case, the birth and death rates are not always equal, and there may be both immigration and emigration (unlike the logistic equation), yet despite population fluctuations, the long-term population trajectory through time has a slope of zero. The fourth use is to define carrying capacity in terms of Justus Liebig’s 1855 law of the minimum that population size is constrained by whatever resource is in the shortest supply. This concept is particularly difficult to apply to natural populations due to its simplifying assumptions of independent limiting factors and population size being directly proportional to whatever factor is most limiting. Moreover, unlike the other three definitions, the law of the minimum does not necessarily imply population regulation. Note that none of these definitions from basic ecology explicitly acknowledges the fact that the population size of any species is affected by interactions with other species, including predators, parasites, diseases, competitors, mutualists, etc. Given that the biotic environment afforded by all other species in the ecosystem typically varies, as does the abiotic environment, the notion of carrying capacity as a fixed population size or density is highly unrealistic. Additionally, these definitions of carrying capacity ignore evolutionary change in species that may also affect population size within any particular environment. B A Fig: Logistic growth curve and carrying capacity: A: From Peter Stiling; B: From Ricklefs & Miller Applied Ecology: The term carrying capacity may have first appeared in an 1898 publication by H. L. Bentley of the United States Department of Agriculture, with an original focus on. maximizing production of domestic cattle on rangelands of the US southwest. The first use in wildlife management was apparently associated with classic studies of deer populations on the Kaibab Plateau in northern Arizona in the 1920s. The concept was popularized in wildlife ecology by Aldo Leopold and Paul Errington in the 1930s. There have been four typical uses of carrying capacity in applied ecology, illustrated in Figure 2: (1) the maximal steady-state number or biomass of animals an area can support in the absence of exploitation (the original use of carrying capacity, K); (2) the maximal sustainable yield (MSY) of biomass of animals an area can produce for exploitation, which equals 0.5K in the simplest form of the logistic model; (3) the maximal sustainable economic yield (MEY) of animals an area can produce for exploitation, which equals the maximum difference between yield value and cost of exploitation; and (4) the open-access equilibrium (OAE), where the value of the yield equals the cost of exploitation, which is the upper economic limit of exploitation in the absence of economic subsidies and restrictive management regulations. Note that open access, typical of historical marine fisheries, often leads to severe overexploitation because the population is reduced to sizes far below the other types of carrying capacity. Indeed, even the application of maximum sustainable yield in single species fisheries management has proven elusive and often disastrous, as evidenced by the poor state of most marine fishery stocks so managed. Two additional uses of carrying capacity in applied ecology focus on optimal stocking of rangeland with cattle, sheep, etc. The Society for Range Management defines the term as the maximum stocking rate possible which is consistent with maintaining or improving vegetation or related resources. A more general definition is the optimum stocking level to achieve specific objectives given specified management options. These practical definitions implicitly acknowledge that carrying capacity is not a constant, but rather is affected by a variety of environmental factors. ECONOMIC CARRYING CAPACITY Economic carrying capacity is defined by management goals for population productivity, animal quality and habitat conditions but is determined by a habitat’s variable and limited ability to sustain achievement of these goals. Economic carrying capacities defined by management goals for population productivity and for population control are termed maximum harvest density and minimum impact density. Maximum harvest density The concept is usually applicable to ungulates. It is the number of animals that a habitat will support while producing a maximum sustained harvestable surplus. In terms of the sigmoid model, the population is at or somewhat above the inflection point. The population must be maintained at this level of abundance by harvest. Therefore no lack of welfare factors prohibit the growth of a population Impact on wildlife populations & its habitat 1. At maximum harvest density, population quality will be very good though not probably the very best possible. 2. Populations at MHD characteristically exhibit a young age structure and high rate of turnover 3. Habitat condition will also be good though not without signs of use and perhaps retrogressed vegetation Minimum impact density Minimum impact density as a goal for wildlife management aims to reduce the impact of wild animals on those of desirable target species. It may be desirable to maintain a population at MID of carrying capacity if - The population is considered to be a pest species, one not to be eliminated but to be controlled - The predator population depresses the production of livestock or desirable wildlife species - Ungulates compete with valuable and perhaps less competitive wildlife species target of a particular management programme Impact on wildlife population and its habitat 1. Populations maintained at Minimum impact density of carrying capacity have a very low level of ecological density. 2. Reproduction and resistance to natural mortality is generally high in such populations, requiring persistent and abundant harvest of animals to maintain the population at this level. 3. The population habitat should also be in excellent condition, receiving only minor use from the depressed population. “Ecological carrying capacity is a variable habitat characteristic determined by changeful amounts of welfare factors that limit the size and productivity of a species population.” Sometimes populations are unharvested, or normal levels of harvest do not influence the population size very much. In these cases carrying capacities are determined only by limiting habitat resources, and it is often useful to distinguish which set of limiting resources is important in determining population size. Ecological carrying capacity as determined by limiting amount of forage or interspersion and of space is termed as subsistence density, security density and tolerance density respectively. Subsistence density It is the size of an unharvested population limited primarily by forage. In terms of the sigmoid model subsistence density occurs at the upper asymptote. Impact on wildlife population
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecological Thresholds: the Key to Successful Environmental Management Or an Important Concept with No Practical Application?
    Ecosystems (2006) 9: 1–13 DOI: 10.1007/s10021-003-0142-z MINI REVIEW Ecological Thresholds: The Key to Successful Environmental Management or an Important Concept with No Practical Application? Peter M. Groffman,1* Jill S. Baron,2 Tamara Blett,3 Arthur J. Gold,4 Iris Goodman,5 Lance H. Gunderson,6 Barbara M. Levinson,5 Margaret A. Palmer,7 Hans W. Paerl,8 Garry D. Peterson,9 N. LeRoy Poff,10 David W. Rejeski,11 James F. Reynolds,12 Monica G. Turner,13 Kathleen C. Weathers,1 and John Wiens14 1Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, New York 12545, USA; 2Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, US Geological Survey, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1499, USA; 3Air Resources Division, USDI-National Park Service, Academy Place, Room 450, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287, USA; 4Department of Natural Resources Science, 105 Coastal Institute in Kingston, University of Rhode Island, One Greenhouse Road, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, USA 5US Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, USA; 6Department of Environmental Studies, Emory University, 400 Dowman Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA; 7University of Maryland, Plant Sciences Building 4112, College Park, Maryland 20742-4415, USA; 8Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557, USA; 9Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, 680 N. Park St., Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA; 10Department of
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Limits Page 1
    POST Report 370 January 2011 Living with Environmental Limits Page 1 Summary Human well-being is dependent upon assessment approaches. However, where renewable natural resources. Agricultural there is a risk of thresholds being systems, for example, depend upon plant breached and potentially irreversible productivity, soil, the water cycle, the impacts occurring, additional policy nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus nutrient safeguards to maintain natural resource cycles and a stable climate. Renewable systems within environmental limits are natural resources can be subject to required. biological and physical thresholds beyond which irreversible changes in benefit Managing ecosystems to maximise one provision may occur. These are difficult to particular benefit, such as food provision, define and many are likely to be identified can result in declines in other benefits. only once crossed. An environmental limit The evidence base is not yet sufficient to is usually interpreted as the point or range determine the most effective ways to of conditions beyond which there is a maintain benefit provision within significant risk of thresholds being environmental limits, but a range of policy exceeded and unacceptable changes responses are seeking to optimise multiple occurring.1 benefit provision, including: Biodiversity loss, climate change and a agri-environment schemes range of other pressures are affecting generic measures to enhance renewable natural resources. If biodiversity, which may increase governments do not effectively monitor the the capacity of natural resource use and degradation of natural resource systems to adapt to environmental systems in national account frameworks, change the probability of costs arising from the use of ecological processes to exploiting natural resources beyond increase overall natural system environmental limits is not taken into resilience to address problems account.
    [Show full text]
  • Physico-Chemical Thresholds in the Distribution of Fish Species Among
    Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2017, 418, 41 Knowledge & © V. Roubeix et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2017 Management of Aquatic DOI: 10.1051/kmae/2017032 Ecosystems www.kmae-journal.org Journal fully supported by Onema RESEARCH PAPER Physico-chemical thresholds in the distribution of fish species among French lakes Vincent Roubeix1,*, Martin Daufresne1, Christine Argillier1, Julien Dublon1, Anthony Maire1,a, Delphine Nicolas1,b, Jean-Claude Raymond2,3 and Pierre-Alain Danis2 1 Irstea, UR RECOVER, Pôle AFB-Irstea hydroécologie plans d’eau, Centre d’Aix-en-Provence, 3275 route Cézanne, 13182 Aix-en-Provence, France 2 Agence française pour la biodiversité, Pôle AFB-Irstea hydroécologie plans d’eau, 13182 Aix-en-Provence, France 3 Agence française pour la biodiversité, Délégation Régionale Rhône-Alpes, Unité Spécialisée Milieux Lacustres, 74200 Thonon-les-Bains, France Abstract – The management of lakes requires the definition of physico-chemical thresholds to be used for ecosystem preservation or restoration. According to the European Water Framework Directive, the limits between physico-chemicalquality classes must be set consistently with biological quality elements. Onewayto do this consists in analyzing the response of aquatic communities to environmental gradients across monitoring sites and in identifying ecological community thresholds, i.e. zones in the gradients where the species turnover is the highest. In this study, fish data from 196 lakes in France were considered to derive ecological thresholds using the multivariate method of gradient forest. The analysis was performed on 25 species and 36 environmental parameters. The results revealed the highest importance of maximal water temperature in the distributionoffishspecies.Otherimportantparametersincludedgeographicalfactors,dissolvedorganiccarbon concentrationandwater transparency,whilenutrients appearedto have lowinfluence.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development
    Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development A Scoping Study Funded by Full Technical Report Project Team: Prof. Roy Haines-Young PD Dr. Marion Potschin Duncan Cheshire Centre for Environmental Management School of Geography, University of Nottingham Nottingham NG7 2RD [email protected] March 2006 Project Code NR0102 Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development: Final Report Citation: HAINES-YOUNG, R.; POTSCHIN, M. and D. CHESHIRE (2006): Defining and identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development. A Scoping Study. Final Full Technical Report to Defra, 103 pp + appendix 77 pp, Project Code NR0102. Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development: Final Technical Report Contents Page Acknowledgements ii Executive Summary iv Part I Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Context and Aim 1 Part II: Conceptual Frameworks 4 Chapter 2: Limits and Thresholds: Definitions 4 Chapter 3: Identifying Limits and Thresholds 12 Chapter 4: Values and the Problem of Limits and Thresholds 29 Part III: Exploring the Evidence Base 33 Chapter 5: Biodiversity 33 Chapter 6: Land Use and Landscape 42 Chapter 7: Recreation 52 Chapter 8: Marine Environment 57 Chapter 9: Water - supply and demand 62 Chapter 10: Climate Change 68 Chapter 11: Pollution Loads 75 Part IV: Conclusions and Recommendations 82 Chapter 12: Respecting Environmental Limits 82 References 94 Appendix A: Briefing and Position Papers by external experts 104 i Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development: Final Technical Report Acknowledgements Part III of this report “Exploring the Evidence Base” draws heavily upon a set of position papers from invited scientists, which are presented in their original form in the appendix of this full technical report.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Salinity Gradient Changes on Phytoplankton Growth Caused
    water Article Influence of Salinity Gradient Changes on Phytoplankton Growth Caused by Sluice Construction in Yongjiang River Estuary Area Menglin Yuan, Cuiling Jiang *, Xi Weng and Manxue Zhang College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China; [email protected] (M.Y.); [email protected] (X.W.); [email protected] (M.Z.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 15 August 2020; Accepted: 2 September 2020; Published: 7 September 2020 Abstract: Though the number of sluices and dams in coastal areas has increased rapidly in recent years, the influence of their construction on phytoplankton in estuary areas is hardly known. This paper aims to provide a reference for quantitative research on the ecological influence of sluice construction and give ecological justifications for the setting of environmental standards in the estuary areas. The survey data gained at the lower reach of the Yongjiang River and its estuarine areas in June 2015 were used in MIKE21 software (Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), Denmark)) for establishing a two-dimensional numerical model to simulate the salinity field distribution after sluice construction. Based on the simulation results, the salinity gradient changes caused by the construction were analyzed. The one-dimensional Gaussian model was applied to calculated the phytoplankton’s ecological threshold interval over the salinity changes, which helped predict the influence of salinity changes on phytoplankton cell density. The study shows that salinity in the Yongjiang estuary increases obviously, beyond the phytoplankton ecological threshold, after sluice construction without water discharge. Salinity will become a restriction factor to phytoplankton growth after sluice construction in the study area, which may cause a sharp decrease of certain phytoplankton species.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Thresholds Associated with Habitat Loss: a Review of the Concepts, Evidence, and Applications
    Biol. Rev. (2010), 85, pp. 35–53. 35 doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00093.x Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: a review of the concepts, evidence, and applications Trisha L. Swift* and Susan J. Hannon Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9 Canada (Received 6 July 2008; revised 30 June 2009; accepted 9 July 2009) ABSTRACT A major conservation concern is whether population size and other ecological variables change linearly with habitat loss, or whether they suddenly decline more rapidly below a ‘‘critical threshold’’ level of habitat. The most commonly discussed explanation for critical threshold responses to habitat loss focus on habitat configuration. As habitat loss progresses, the remaining habitat is increasingly fragmented or the fragments are increasingly isolated, which may compound the effects of habitat loss. In this review we also explore other possible explanations for apparently nonlinear relationships between habitat loss and ecological responses, including Allee effects and time lags, and point out that some ecological variables will inherently respond nonlinearly to habitat loss even in the absence of compounding factors. In the literature, both linear and nonlinear ecological responses to habitat loss are evident among simulation and empirical studies, although the presence and value of critical thresholds is influenced by characteristics of the species (e.g. dispersal, reproduction, area/edge sensitivity) and landscape (e.g. fragmentation, matrix quality, rate of change). With enough empirical support, such trends could be useful for making important predictions about species’ responses to habitat loss, to guide future research on the underlying causes of critical thresholds, and to make better informed management decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • State and Transition Modeling: an Ecological Process Approach
    J. Range Manage. 56: 106 -113 March 2003 State and transition modeling: An ecological process approach TAMZEN K. STRINGHAM, WILLIAM C. KRUEGER, AND PATRICK L. SHAVER Authors are assistant professor and professor, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore. 97331; and rangeland manage - ment specialist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute, Corvallis, Ore. 97331. Abstract Resumen State-and-transition models hold great potential to aid in Los modelos de estados-y- transición presentan un gran understanding rangeland ecosystems’ response to natural and/or potencial para ayudar a entender la respuesta de los ecosis- management-induced disturbances by providing a framework temas de pastizal a los disturbios naturales y/o inducidos por el for organizing current understanding of potential ecosystem manejo al proveer una estructura para organizar el dynamics. Many conceptual state-and-transition models have conocimiento presente de las dinámicas del potencial del ecosis- been developed, however, the ecological interpretation of the tema. Muchos modelos conceptuales de estados-y-transición model’s primary components, states, transitions, and thresholds, han sido desarrollados, sin embargo, la interpretación ecológi- has varied due to a lack of universally accepted definitions. The ca de los componentes principales del modelo: estados, transi- lack of consistency in definitions has led to confusion and criti- ciones y umbrales han variado debido a la carencia de defini- cism indicating the need for further development and refinement ciones universalmente aceptadas. La falta de consistencia en las of the theory and associated models. We present an extensive definiciones ha conducido a confusión y critica indicando la review of current literature and conceptual models and point out necesidad de un mayor desarrollo y refinamiento de la teoría y the inconsistencies in the application of nonequilibrium ecology los modelos asociados.
    [Show full text]
  • UFZ-Report 03/2005: Ecological Resilience and Its Relevance Within
    UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle in the Helmholtz-Association UFZ-Report 0 3/2005 Ecological Resilience and its Relevance within a Theory of Sustainable Development Fridolin Brand UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle Department of Ecological Modelling ISSN 0948-9452 UFZ-Report 03/2005 Ecological Resilience and its Relevance within a Theory of Sustainable Development Fridolin Brand Contents Preface List of Figures List of Tables List of Abbreviations 1. Introduction 1 2. Relevance of Ecosystem Resilience within Sustainability Discourse 7 2.1 Ecosystem Resilience & Limits to Growth 8 2.2 Ecosystem Resilience & Strong Sustainability 14 2.2.1 Ethical Idea 15 2.2.2 Weak versus Strong Sustainability 17 2.3 Ecosystem Resilience & Ecological Economics 23 3. Ecological Aspects of Ecosystem Resilience Theory 30 3.1 Conceptual Clarifications and Preliminaries 32 3.1.1 Definitions 32 3.1.2 Relevance of Concepts in Ecology 33 3.1.3 Stability Properties 34 3.1.4 Definition of Resilience 40 3.2 Background Theory of Ecosystem Resilience 46 3.2.1 Different Views of Nature 46 3.2.2 A Model of Complex Adaptive Systems 48 3.2.2.1 Adaptive Cycle 50 3.2.2.2 Panarchy 56 3.2.3 Alternative Stable Regimes 62 3.2.4 Stability Landscape 68 3.3 Resilience Mechanisms & the Ecosystem Functioning Debate 75 3.3.1 Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning Debate 75 3.3.2 Biodiversity-Stability Debate 78 3.3.3 Ecosystem Resilience Mechanisms 82 3.3.3.1 Ecological Redundancy 84 3.3.3.2 Response Diversity & Insurance Hypothesis 87 3.3.3.3 Imbricated
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis on the Ecological Basis of Resource Recycling
    Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 9, No. 4; 2016 ISSN 1913-9063 E-ISSN 1913-9071 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Analysis on the Ecological Basis of Resource Recycling Tingting Liu1 & Yufeng Wu1 1 Insistute of Circular Economy, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China Correspondence: Yufeng Wu, Insistute of Circular Economy, Beijing University of Technology, Chaoyang Dirstrict, Beijing, 100122, China. Tel: 86-010-67396263. E-mail: [email protected] Received: April 6, 2016 Accepted: May 18, 2016 Online Published: July 30, 2016 doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n4p234 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v9n4p234 Abstract Resource recycling is one of the most important content of ecological civilization construction in China, which is beneficial to reduce the overuse of primary resources exploitation, to reduce the environmental pollutions during the process of resource extraction and waste disposal, and to realize the sustainable development of human economy and society. Resource recycling is a reflection of ecological economic develop ment. Ecology provides a theoretical support for the resource circulation industry development. The ecological theories have played a guiding role. However, there are not enough academic researches to systematically summarize and analyze the relation and connection between ecology and resource recycling. Therefore, we based on the ecological theories to analyze the theoretical basis and application for resources recycling. The results showed that the ecological threshold theory, ecological balance theory, Overall hierarchy theory, the food chain (web) theory, niche theory and so on can be used to explain the resource circulation system such as resources recycling building concepts, resources recycling industry development foundation and the government's role in promoting resources circulation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Ecological Thresholds to Inform Resource Management: Current Options and Future Possibilities
    REVIEW published: 09 November 2015 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00095 Using Ecological Thresholds to Inform Resource Management: Current Options and Future Possibilities Melissa M. Foley 1*†, Rebecca G. Martone 1, Michael D. Fox 1 †, Carrie V. Kappel 2, Lindley A. Mease 3, Ashley L. Erickson 3, Benjamin S. Halpern 2, 4, 5, Kimberly A. Selkoe 2, 6, Peter Taylor 7 and Courtney Scarborough 2 1 Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford Woods Institute, Monterey, CA, USA, 2 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 3 Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford Woods Institute, Stanford, CA, USA, 4 Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Edited by: 5 Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, UK, 6 Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, Kâne‘ohe, HI, USA, Ellen Hines, 7 Waterview Consulting, Harpswell, ME, USA San Francisco State University, USA Reviewed by: Marco Milazzo, In the face of growing human impacts on ecosystems, scientists and managers recognize University of Palermo, Italy the need to better understand thresholds and non-linear dynamics in ecological systems Rochelle Diane Seitz, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, to help set management targets. However, our understanding of the factors that drive USA threshold dynamics, and when and how rapidly thresholds will be crossed is currently *Correspondence: limited in many systems. In spite of these limitations, there are approaches available Melissa M. Foley to practitioners today—including ecosystem monitoring, statistical methods to identify [email protected] thresholds and indicators, and threshold-based adaptive management—that can be †Present Address: Melissa M.
    [Show full text]
  • 1999 May 23–27; Mi
    The Evolving Role of Science in Wilderness to Our Understanding of Ecosystems and Landscapes Norman L. Christensen, Jr. Abstract—Research in wilderness areas (areas with minimal Disturbance and Change _________ human activity and of large spatial extent) formed the foundation for ecological models and theories that continue to shape our Henry Chandler Cowles’ (1899, 1901) studies of succes- understanding how ecosystems change through time, how ecologi- sion on sand dunes newly exposed by the retreat of the Lake cal communities are structured and how ecosystems function. By Michigan shoreline initiated a search for a unifying theory the middle of this century, large expanses of wilderness had of ecosystem change that continues to this day. Cowles’ become less common and comparative studies between undis- primary interest was in understanding the relationship turbed and human-dominated landscapes were more prevalent. between the process of vegetation change and landform Such studies formed the basis an evolving understanding of hu- evolution. He did not advocate a unifying theory for succes- man impacts on ecosystem productivity and biogeochemical cy- sional change in this work, but his assertions on several cling. Research in the last third of this century has repeatedly important points were central to the evolution of such a taught us that even the most remote wilderness areas are not free theory. These assertions included directional change con- of human influence. Nevertheless, extensive wilderness has been verging on a stable climax community and “biotic reaction,” and will continue to be critical to our understanding our impacts that is, organismal influences on the environment as a on nonwilderness landscapes.
    [Show full text]
  • MU Ecological Succession
    ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION Prepared by Dr. Rukhshana Parveen Assistant Professor, Department of Botany Gautum Buddha Mahila College, Gaya Magadh University, Bodhgaya Ecological Succession is also called as Plant Succession or Biotic succession. Hult (1885) used the term” succession”. The authentic studies on succession were started in America by Cowles (1899) and Clements (1907). The occurrence of relatively definite sequence of communities over a long period of time in the same area resulting in establishment of stable community is called ecological succession. It allows new areas to be colonized and damaged ecosystems to be recolonized, so organisms can adapt to the changes in the environment and continue to survive. Major types of ecological succession. 1. Primary Succession- When the succession starts from barren area such as bare rock or open water. It is called primary succession. Figure1:- Primary succession. 2. Secondary Succession- Secondary succession occurs when the primary ecosystem gets destroyed by fire or any other agent. It gets recolonized after the destruction. This is known as secondary ecological succession. Figure2:- Secondary succession. 3. Autogenic succession:- After succession has begun, Its vegetation itself cause its own replacement by new communities is called Autogenic succession 4. Cyclic Succession: - This refers to repeated occurrence of certain stages of succession. 5. Allogenic succession:- When the replacement of existing community is caused by any other external condition and not by existing vegetation itself. This is called allogenic succession. 6. Autotropoic succession:- It is characterised by early and continued dominance of autotrophic organism called green plants. 7. Heterotropic succession:- It is characterised by early dominance of heterotrophs such as bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi and animal.
    [Show full text]